Search Richgo stocks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions search by Korean names/partial names/codes and returns candidates, but lacks disclosure on behavior like handling non-Korean names, ambiguity, pagination (limit is in schema but not explained), rate limits, or scope (e.g., only Korean markets).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and parameters. Every word adds value; no redundancy or jargon.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and the input types. However, it could mention the output format or typical use case (e.g., 'Use to find the correct code before calling detail endpoints').

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description adds context that the query can be a Korean name, partial name, or code, but does not elaborate on 'limit' beyond what the schema provides (default 8, min 1, max 50). This is adequate but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search'), resource ('Richgo Finance stocks'), and input types ('Korean name, partial name, or code'). It also specifies the output ('matching stock candidates'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'richgo_get_stock_detail' which would retrieve details for a specific stock.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., analyze, detail, rankings). The description implies usage for initial discovery, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended follow-ups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.